Like I said it was an old idea when ammo was cheap. The government has a bunch of it.
Federal judge says those accused of felonies still have Second Amendment rights
- Thread starter ttown
- Start Date
If....you are to unstable / dangerous to own a gun....
You should locked up or not in this country....
EVERY .....Free walking citizen ...should be able to own a gun
No matter of past happening with the law / government ...if you are not in prison ...
Even the day you get out ...
EVERY ...American Citizen has the right to own a gun...Written into the 2nd ....God given right...not cheap congressparasite tax law...
You should locked up or not in this country....
EVERY .....Free walking citizen ...should be able to own a gun
No matter of past happening with the law / government ...if you are not in prison ...
Even the day you get out ...
EVERY ...American Citizen has the right to own a gun...Written into the 2nd ....God given right...not cheap congressparasite tax law...
I wonder how long before some of our laws are turned against gun owners and otherwise decent humans catch felonies for possession of a previously legal bit of hardware?
Or perhaps the "hate speech/domestic terrorist" witch hunt labels some of us as unfit to own a firearm? (which I have said for years that censorship, not gun control has been the goal of the elites all along)
Everyone's tough on crime until they become the target of the legal system.
Or perhaps the "hate speech/domestic terrorist" witch hunt labels some of us as unfit to own a firearm? (which I have said for years that censorship, not gun control has been the goal of the elites all along)
Everyone's tough on crime until they become the target of the legal system.
Thats a very fair point too. Any time I have spent time thinking through some legal or political change I think could benefit, it turns into a very bad idea once you factor in a ruling class implementing it.
Even something like requiring law enforcement and court officials to be members of the communities they serve leaves plenty of room for manipulation if the right corrupt citizen meets up with the right corruptible officer or judge. Lots of things would work amazingly well if humans were perfect and predictable.
Person charged with a misdemeanor domestic violence can lose his 2a rights as well as red flag laws and angry neighbors
This is a very interesting topic. Like some others, I'm of two minds on the subject. When I have these internal conflicts regarding legal canon, I find it useful to return to the source.
AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb*; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In some jurisdictions, Grand Juries meet infrequently. Half of US states don't use Grand Juries in practice, and it may take weeks, months or even years for prosecutors to file an indictment after the crime and arrest. What amount of time is is reasonable to incarcerate an arrested person who hasn't been indicted? How long is it reasonable to tie up a substantial bail amount from someone in the same situation? There have been people held without bail or bond for YEARS without prosecution. How do you make that person whole if they're found not guilty? While we're all worried about rogue leftist prosecutors releasing violent criminals with no bail, we should also worry about cases and jurisdictions where unreasonably stiff bails and lengthy pre-trial incarcerations are happening.
* I'll address the double jeopardy issue after AMENDMENT VII.
AMENDMENT VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
As above, taking many months or years to prosecute once an indictment is filed has become routine. If the accused doesn't want a speedy trial and repeatedly delays prosecution for their own benefit, then I'm unconcerned about their release on bail. Any bail set should still be reasonable. If the delay is on the prosecution, then they filed their indictment too soon. That's their problem to solve and the accused shouldn't have their rights abridged in the process.
AMENDMENT VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This is a HUGE problem, because we in fact do have double-jeopardy in the criminal legal system. If a State fails to win a guilty verdict in a particular criminal matter, sometimes the U.S. DoJ will pick up the matter and prosecute federally, for the same set of circumstances under "different" federal criminal statutes. SCOTUS needs to rule that Feds and State(s) may not consecutively or concurrently prosecute for the same set of circumstances. In cases where state and federal jurisdiction overlap, they should be required to agree upon which jurisdiction will prosecute. Once they do, the non-prosecuting jurisdiction may assist the prosecuting jurisdiction, but shall forever be barred from opening a prosecution for the same matter. That wouldn't preclude each jurisdiction from prosecuting a person for separate parts of a single crime, i.e. State tries for murder, Feds for kidnapping across state lines.
AMENDMENT VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Bailments are sometimes excessive and no case reflects this more than the $2M Rittenhouse bail. He was never a flight risk and did not have wealth. On top of that, the known circumstances of the case readily called into doubt his guilt or innocence. The $2M figure was not set for the purposed of the prosecution or the accused. They were set to assuage the inadequacies of the government. An accused who is subject to excessive bail, should be able to rapidly appeal that bail up to and including a federal appeals court. The Rittenhouse bail should've been reduced to no more than 10% of the original figure, even less IMO. What the State did in that case was flagrantly unconstitutional.
Worse, in many federal cases the feds seize all worthwhile assets of the accused. This effectively presents a barrier to affording ANY bail, much less excessive bail. Unless ALL of the accused assets can readily be proven to be the proceeds of a crime, the disputed assets should be put in escrow, from which the accused may pay legal costs related to the indictment. Civil Asset Forfeiture as it is currently practiced, should be permanently banned nationwide. Set it in escrow and file for forfeiture AFTER conviction.
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
How many times have we seen legislatures, states, prosecutors and courts create wildly unforeseen methods and practices to twist logic and infringe on people's rights? Too many. Assertion of Amendment IX rights should automatically place the law or practice under "strict scrutiny" legal rules.
The bottom line for me is that there are cases where high bail amounts or pre-trial incarceration are justified. In THOSE cases, I'm not opposed to creative agreements in lieu of high bail or pre-trial incarceration. If the accused agrees to certain restrictions on their rights in lieu of JUSTIFIED high bail amounts or pre-trial incarceration, I don't see a constitutional issue with it. I'm vehemently opposed to courts setting or agreeing to excessive bail or unnecessary pre-trial incarceration, just to coerce concessions from the accused.
Likewise upon conviction and sentencing or paroles, I don't see a constitutional infringement if the State or feds offer a reduced or abridged sentence in exchange for certain concessions by the convicted. They're already on the hook for the full sentence and any relief at all is in their favor. But once their full sentence is fulfilled, their constitutional rights must be restored. That means ALL of their constitutional rights.
If the legal systems need to alter their procedures and practices to fulfill these obligations, so be it.
AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb*; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In some jurisdictions, Grand Juries meet infrequently. Half of US states don't use Grand Juries in practice, and it may take weeks, months or even years for prosecutors to file an indictment after the crime and arrest. What amount of time is is reasonable to incarcerate an arrested person who hasn't been indicted? How long is it reasonable to tie up a substantial bail amount from someone in the same situation? There have been people held without bail or bond for YEARS without prosecution. How do you make that person whole if they're found not guilty? While we're all worried about rogue leftist prosecutors releasing violent criminals with no bail, we should also worry about cases and jurisdictions where unreasonably stiff bails and lengthy pre-trial incarcerations are happening.
* I'll address the double jeopardy issue after AMENDMENT VII.
AMENDMENT VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
As above, taking many months or years to prosecute once an indictment is filed has become routine. If the accused doesn't want a speedy trial and repeatedly delays prosecution for their own benefit, then I'm unconcerned about their release on bail. Any bail set should still be reasonable. If the delay is on the prosecution, then they filed their indictment too soon. That's their problem to solve and the accused shouldn't have their rights abridged in the process.
AMENDMENT VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
This is a HUGE problem, because we in fact do have double-jeopardy in the criminal legal system. If a State fails to win a guilty verdict in a particular criminal matter, sometimes the U.S. DoJ will pick up the matter and prosecute federally, for the same set of circumstances under "different" federal criminal statutes. SCOTUS needs to rule that Feds and State(s) may not consecutively or concurrently prosecute for the same set of circumstances. In cases where state and federal jurisdiction overlap, they should be required to agree upon which jurisdiction will prosecute. Once they do, the non-prosecuting jurisdiction may assist the prosecuting jurisdiction, but shall forever be barred from opening a prosecution for the same matter. That wouldn't preclude each jurisdiction from prosecuting a person for separate parts of a single crime, i.e. State tries for murder, Feds for kidnapping across state lines.
AMENDMENT VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Bailments are sometimes excessive and no case reflects this more than the $2M Rittenhouse bail. He was never a flight risk and did not have wealth. On top of that, the known circumstances of the case readily called into doubt his guilt or innocence. The $2M figure was not set for the purposed of the prosecution or the accused. They were set to assuage the inadequacies of the government. An accused who is subject to excessive bail, should be able to rapidly appeal that bail up to and including a federal appeals court. The Rittenhouse bail should've been reduced to no more than 10% of the original figure, even less IMO. What the State did in that case was flagrantly unconstitutional.
Worse, in many federal cases the feds seize all worthwhile assets of the accused. This effectively presents a barrier to affording ANY bail, much less excessive bail. Unless ALL of the accused assets can readily be proven to be the proceeds of a crime, the disputed assets should be put in escrow, from which the accused may pay legal costs related to the indictment. Civil Asset Forfeiture as it is currently practiced, should be permanently banned nationwide. Set it in escrow and file for forfeiture AFTER conviction.
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
How many times have we seen legislatures, states, prosecutors and courts create wildly unforeseen methods and practices to twist logic and infringe on people's rights? Too many. Assertion of Amendment IX rights should automatically place the law or practice under "strict scrutiny" legal rules.
The bottom line for me is that there are cases where high bail amounts or pre-trial incarceration are justified. In THOSE cases, I'm not opposed to creative agreements in lieu of high bail or pre-trial incarceration. If the accused agrees to certain restrictions on their rights in lieu of JUSTIFIED high bail amounts or pre-trial incarceration, I don't see a constitutional issue with it. I'm vehemently opposed to courts setting or agreeing to excessive bail or unnecessary pre-trial incarceration, just to coerce concessions from the accused.
Likewise upon conviction and sentencing or paroles, I don't see a constitutional infringement if the State or feds offer a reduced or abridged sentence in exchange for certain concessions by the convicted. They're already on the hook for the full sentence and any relief at all is in their favor. But once their full sentence is fulfilled, their constitutional rights must be restored. That means ALL of their constitutional rights.
If the legal systems need to alter their procedures and practices to fulfill these obligations, so be it.
Last edited:
Good information. Thanks GTG
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb*; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
And different topic - but asset forfeiture is a big deal to me. When we allow armed thugs to confiscate property without due process we allow our basic rights to be trampled on.
And I can already hear the righteous crying "those dope dealers need to lose everything!"
Problem is - when you allow anyone's rights to be violated, it paves the way for your rights to be violated as well.
And different topic - but asset forfeiture is a big deal to me. When we allow armed thugs to confiscate property without due process we allow our basic rights to be trampled on.
And I can already hear the righteous crying "those dope dealers need to lose everything!"
Problem is - when you allow anyone's rights to be violated, it paves the way for your rights to be violated as well.
What is considered as being a felony in on state might be seen as only a misdemeanor in another. Trying to set appropriate punishments before setting uniform crime definitions is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. The United States will never have a fair and impartial justice system until everyone gets on the same page.
If that was ever the goal, it was discarded a LONG time ago.
Similar threads
